Remember the heat of the emotions vs LSU, when Sellers got hurt, yet could still gut it out if he had to, and Beamer didnt let him? And if he does play him, maybe we win vs LSU maybe not, and maybe Sellers gets hurt worse and we lose him for the season. Man that decision in hindsight was so good. How easy it would’ve been to play him and try to snag that win. But he didnt, Sellers has clearly developed right before our eyes, and a 9-3 season is actually a possibility
Beamers decision to sit Sellers vs LSU in hindsight was so good
- Thread starter Coastal Gamecock
- Start date
What if he played him, we won the game?
Then Sellers rests for Akron and a bye week to come back fully healthy?
They tried to play him but his injury made him one dimensional, and that one dimension was his weakest dimension.
Maybe. Or we lose him for the year. They always say these injuries are uncertain until the next morning when they really get a full assessment. Making that choice in the chaos of the sideline, with emotions and adrenaline, not an easy choice for sure
Yeah thats what they thought but as always until the next day x rays and swelling comes and goes its never certain. Coulda been a fracture that would be worse had he gutted out the whole game
I don't think it was much of a decision. Sellers could do nothing the one series he played the second half against LSU. If anything, it was a poor coaching decision to even send him back out for it. That was a throwaway possession.
Or maybe we have one less loss right now, and are talking about playoffs.
My point being, i don't think this is a slam dunk decision, even in hindsight.
You either trust your QB - or you don't. Sellers was ready to come back. Wanted to come back. It was a bad decision.
Who knows? Maybe it was the right decision, maybe the wrong one. None of us know all of the facts that were available to the staff at the time and I will give the coaching staff the benefit of the doubt. But we lost a game to LSU that we probably should have won. Based on that, I'm unwilling to say it was clearly the right decision.
Wait, I was with you up until this. Wouldn't losing the game make it the wrong choice?
Even without Sellars the LSU game was winnable. Remember too, he had something nag him in the UK game. He probably wasn’t 100% going into LSU. I get the thought that if he’s healthy it’s a completely different game, but that’s all unknown.
What we know is both coordinators needed to figure out things that they didn’t, tackling was poor that game, and it’s hard enough to beat your opponent without having to beat the officials. We also know Sellers just played his best game so far. So now we’ll see where he goes from here as a healthy QB.
So not real concerned with what could have happened with Sellers since it was still winnable without him.
What we know is both coordinators needed to figure out things that they didn’t, tackling was poor that game, and it’s hard enough to beat your opponent without having to beat the officials. We also know Sellers just played his best game so far. So now we’ll see where he goes from here as a healthy QB.
So not real concerned with what could have happened with Sellers since it was still winnable without him.
Not without knowing the extent of Sellers' injury. We don't know if Sellers was capable of leading us to victory that day or not, to say nothing of the potential for aggravating the injury further. I'm not willing to say sitting him was the right decision, but I'm not willing to say it was the wrong one, based on available facts. I don't think it's obvious one way or the other.
I am, however, critical of the staff's decision to not let Ashford throw the ball every now and then in that game.
Get unlimited access today.